Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2886 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] installing suse 7.3 - again ;))
- From: "Christopher John Shaker" <cjshaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:50:51 -0800
- Message-id: <043801c1b7e4$056a8ce0$7901a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
James:
You may well be correct that SuSE Linux outperforms Win2K on a
server. I've never attempted to use Windows on a server. I run SuSE
7.3 Professional on my SMP K7 server.
I'm talking about speed comparisons on my workstations. I own
Win2K Professional, because that is the only Windows release that
my previous employer currently supports for work applications (they
now also support RedHat Linux 7.2). I've since purchased WinXP Home
edition, and now use that instead of Win2K. I didn't run any server
processes on Win2K, and I'm not under WinXP either. I'm not running
any server processes on this workstation when I boot SuSE 7.3
professional on it. Even inetd is turned off.
When running under Windows, I'm usually running Outlook Express
6.0 and IE 6.0. When running under SuSE Linux, I'm running KDE,
Kmail, and Konquorer.
Chris Shaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Bliss" <bliss@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Christopher John Shaker" <cjshaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [SLE] installing suse 7.3 - again ;))
> You are not making an apples for apples comparison here, IMHO. You are
> running WinXP home, which would suggest to me that you were running Win2K
> Professional if not even Win2K Personal.
>
> An apples for apples comparison would be to run Win2K Server and compare.
> There is a huge difference between Win2K professional and Win2K Server,
> speed drops dramatically while power increases dramatically.
>
> Or, in the alternative, turn off many of the services which I would
imagine you are
> running on the SuSE install and then compare.
>
> I have compared Win2K Server without IIS running against a SuSE 7.3 with
> Apache, Tomcat and SuSEfirewall2 running. SuSE goots at least 50% faster
and
> performance in X is equivalent when using KDE and much faster when running
> fvwm95. Needless to say, X is not used that often since that is not the
purpose of
> the SuSE installation, which would have also been true with Windows if the
> capability to avoid the GUI was even possible.
>
> Jim
>
> 02/17/02 11:33:19 AM, "Christopher John Shaker" <cjshaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >James:
> >
> >I'll second the first poster's comments. Modern versions of Windows *are*
> >noticably faster than current SuSE Linux 7.3 Professional on my hardware,
> >too.
> >
> >I recently upgraded my dual boot workstation (SuSE Linux 7.3 professional
> >and Windows) from Win2K to WinXP Home, and WinXP is even faster than
> >Win2K. It boots faster. It's display drivers are very fast. It's network
> >stack
> >seems faster than Win2K's.
> >
> >The hardware is a 1.4 Ghz Athlon/Duron, 768 MB DDR PCI 2100 RAM,
> >Adaptec 2940U2W SCSI, Quantum Atlas 10K 18WLS Ultra/160 Wide SCSI
> >drive, and NVidia Riva TNT2 Model 64 Pro. This machine is on a fast, land
> >based network (768 kbit/sec, bidirectional).
> >
> >I've noticed the same thing on my older 800 Mhz PIII system, which is
also
> >dual boot, SuSE Linux 7.3 professional/Win 2K. Win2K also is much better
> >at dealing with Satellite networking latencies than SuSE Linux is. This
PIII
> >system is on Starband.
> >
> >Chris Shaker
> >cjshaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "James Bliss" <bliss@xxxxxxxxx>
> >To: "Dwaine Felch" <dwainef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: <suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: [SLE] installing suse 7.3 - again ;))
> >
> >
> >> Ah, nice to see a Microsoft Shill posting. Actually, there are free
> >upgrades, you just need
> >> to put forth some effort to acquire them. Unlike Microsoft for which
> >there are no free
> >> upgrades, the upgades are generally bug fixes of the previous buggy OS,
> >and there are
> >> tremendous numbers of security holes which the user is paying good
money
> >to install on
> >> their computer.
> >>
> >> Glad you like 2000, it crashes rather consistently on my system while
SuSE
> >linux does
> >> not. Faster? what the hell are you doing, running 2000 on a P 4 and
> >running linux on a
> >> 486?
> >>
> >> Get a life, most of the people on this list know the truth.
> >>
> >>
> >> 02/16/02 09:09:11 AM, Dwaine Felch <dwainef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As linux companies get a taste of money they have started to become
like
> >> >Microsoft, as we know is one of the best at raking in revenue.
> >> >Just in the past year or year and half Suse and Mandrake had two
releases
> >> >each with no free upgrades. Suse quit providing ISOs for x86; with
each
> >turn of the
> >> corner linux companies decrease benefits and scam you for more money,
this
> >will
> >> continue to increase.
> >> >
> >> >In the coming years linux marketing will be no different than the
other
> >> >evil empire. It won't be long and people will be angry at linux and be
> >> >looking for alternatives.
> >> >
> >> >Myself have found Windows 2000 a much better OS than any linux I've
> >worked
> >> >with, W2k always runs faster and has a well laid out GUI with polished
> >> >features; KDE is clunky and slow with a 100x more bugs and hicups than
> >> >you will ever find in Windows 2000.
> >> >
> >> >I think Microsoft is excellent at developing a product if they
> >> >concentrated there efforts on a version of linux they would blow the
> >> >doors off all other linux companies.
> >> >
> >> >A few of many things to ponder.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Ever seince SuSE version 7.1, SuSE has decided to become little money
> >hungry >
> >> bastards and
> >> >>they no longer have the install ISO's on line, but they are available
to
> >paying >
> >> customers.
> >> >>BUT, belive me when I say this, SuSE would be more then happy to take
> >down their >
> >> FTP
> >> >>server and all other mirrors. But they cant cuz Linus would have
nothing
> >to do
> >> >>with it. and the GPL will not allow it. Their says would be numbered
if
> >they
> >> >>pulled a stunt like that. So you can still get SuSE for free off the
FTP
> >server,
> >> >>BUT not in an install ISO form. You have have to download it package
by
> >> >>package. And this is where they get really shitty about some things.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
> >> >For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
> >> >Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the
> >> >archives at http://lists.suse.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
> >> For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
> >> Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the
> >> archives at http://lists.suse.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
You may well be correct that SuSE Linux outperforms Win2K on a
server. I've never attempted to use Windows on a server. I run SuSE
7.3 Professional on my SMP K7 server.
I'm talking about speed comparisons on my workstations. I own
Win2K Professional, because that is the only Windows release that
my previous employer currently supports for work applications (they
now also support RedHat Linux 7.2). I've since purchased WinXP Home
edition, and now use that instead of Win2K. I didn't run any server
processes on Win2K, and I'm not under WinXP either. I'm not running
any server processes on this workstation when I boot SuSE 7.3
professional on it. Even inetd is turned off.
When running under Windows, I'm usually running Outlook Express
6.0 and IE 6.0. When running under SuSE Linux, I'm running KDE,
Kmail, and Konquorer.
Chris Shaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Bliss" <bliss@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Christopher John Shaker" <cjshaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [SLE] installing suse 7.3 - again ;))
> You are not making an apples for apples comparison here, IMHO. You are
> running WinXP home, which would suggest to me that you were running Win2K
> Professional if not even Win2K Personal.
>
> An apples for apples comparison would be to run Win2K Server and compare.
> There is a huge difference between Win2K professional and Win2K Server,
> speed drops dramatically while power increases dramatically.
>
> Or, in the alternative, turn off many of the services which I would
imagine you are
> running on the SuSE install and then compare.
>
> I have compared Win2K Server without IIS running against a SuSE 7.3 with
> Apache, Tomcat and SuSEfirewall2 running. SuSE goots at least 50% faster
and
> performance in X is equivalent when using KDE and much faster when running
> fvwm95. Needless to say, X is not used that often since that is not the
purpose of
> the SuSE installation, which would have also been true with Windows if the
> capability to avoid the GUI was even possible.
>
> Jim
>
> 02/17/02 11:33:19 AM, "Christopher John Shaker" <cjshaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >James:
> >
> >I'll second the first poster's comments. Modern versions of Windows *are*
> >noticably faster than current SuSE Linux 7.3 Professional on my hardware,
> >too.
> >
> >I recently upgraded my dual boot workstation (SuSE Linux 7.3 professional
> >and Windows) from Win2K to WinXP Home, and WinXP is even faster than
> >Win2K. It boots faster. It's display drivers are very fast. It's network
> >stack
> >seems faster than Win2K's.
> >
> >The hardware is a 1.4 Ghz Athlon/Duron, 768 MB DDR PCI 2100 RAM,
> >Adaptec 2940U2W SCSI, Quantum Atlas 10K 18WLS Ultra/160 Wide SCSI
> >drive, and NVidia Riva TNT2 Model 64 Pro. This machine is on a fast, land
> >based network (768 kbit/sec, bidirectional).
> >
> >I've noticed the same thing on my older 800 Mhz PIII system, which is
also
> >dual boot, SuSE Linux 7.3 professional/Win 2K. Win2K also is much better
> >at dealing with Satellite networking latencies than SuSE Linux is. This
PIII
> >system is on Starband.
> >
> >Chris Shaker
> >cjshaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "James Bliss" <bliss@xxxxxxxxx>
> >To: "Dwaine Felch" <dwainef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: <suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: [SLE] installing suse 7.3 - again ;))
> >
> >
> >> Ah, nice to see a Microsoft Shill posting. Actually, there are free
> >upgrades, you just need
> >> to put forth some effort to acquire them. Unlike Microsoft for which
> >there are no free
> >> upgrades, the upgades are generally bug fixes of the previous buggy OS,
> >and there are
> >> tremendous numbers of security holes which the user is paying good
money
> >to install on
> >> their computer.
> >>
> >> Glad you like 2000, it crashes rather consistently on my system while
SuSE
> >linux does
> >> not. Faster? what the hell are you doing, running 2000 on a P 4 and
> >running linux on a
> >> 486?
> >>
> >> Get a life, most of the people on this list know the truth.
> >>
> >>
> >> 02/16/02 09:09:11 AM, Dwaine Felch <dwainef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As linux companies get a taste of money they have started to become
like
> >> >Microsoft, as we know is one of the best at raking in revenue.
> >> >Just in the past year or year and half Suse and Mandrake had two
releases
> >> >each with no free upgrades. Suse quit providing ISOs for x86; with
each
> >turn of the
> >> corner linux companies decrease benefits and scam you for more money,
this
> >will
> >> continue to increase.
> >> >
> >> >In the coming years linux marketing will be no different than the
other
> >> >evil empire. It won't be long and people will be angry at linux and be
> >> >looking for alternatives.
> >> >
> >> >Myself have found Windows 2000 a much better OS than any linux I've
> >worked
> >> >with, W2k always runs faster and has a well laid out GUI with polished
> >> >features; KDE is clunky and slow with a 100x more bugs and hicups than
> >> >you will ever find in Windows 2000.
> >> >
> >> >I think Microsoft is excellent at developing a product if they
> >> >concentrated there efforts on a version of linux they would blow the
> >> >doors off all other linux companies.
> >> >
> >> >A few of many things to ponder.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Ever seince SuSE version 7.1, SuSE has decided to become little money
> >hungry >
> >> bastards and
> >> >>they no longer have the install ISO's on line, but they are available
to
> >paying >
> >> customers.
> >> >>BUT, belive me when I say this, SuSE would be more then happy to take
> >down their >
> >> FTP
> >> >>server and all other mirrors. But they cant cuz Linus would have
nothing
> >to do
> >> >>with it. and the GPL will not allow it. Their says would be numbered
if
> >they
> >> >>pulled a stunt like that. So you can still get SuSE for free off the
FTP
> >server,
> >> >>BUT not in an install ISO form. You have have to download it package
by
> >> >>package. And this is where they get really shitty about some things.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
> >> >For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
> >> >Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the
> >> >archives at http://lists.suse.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
> >> For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
> >> Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the
> >> archives at http://lists.suse.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
| < Previous | Next > |